Internet: Current State and Future Architectures - Introducing NovaGenesis Project

© Antônio M. Alberti 2014

INTERNET: CURRENT STATE AND FUTURE ARCHITECTURES - INTRODUCING

NOVAGENESIS PROJECT

Antonio Marcos Alberti !28th August 2014


Outline1. Panorama on the Current Internet State 2. The Race for Future Internet Architectures 3. Examples of Clean Slate Architectures 4. NovaGenesis: Convergent Information Architecture


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü The Internet has invaded most aspects of life and society,

changing our lifestyle, work, communication, and social interaction. !

ü Nobody doubts about the fundamental role of the Internet on our information society. !!!!!

ü The Internet has strong impact on economy, specially on the services sector (70% of GDP on modern economies).


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü However, it was designed in an era where technological

development was completely different from today. !

ü There was not enough capacity to support sophisticated networking services - the solution was to design a simple, but robust network. !

ü The terminals were fixed, inside secure university/government environment - there was not attackers!! !

ü During decades, it was incrementally developed and deployed, achieving impressive scales!!!


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü The result is a complex agglomerate of incremental protocols

that inherits the grown legacies of decades of patchwork solutions. !

ü New protocols must live with the limitations of the preceding. !

ü Intermediary layers have been added to overcome unplanned situations, reducing network efficiency. !

ü While at the physical layer we are approaching to the theoretic Shannon’s limit of channels, at network level, lots of bytes are lost on inefficient stacking. !

ü Let’s consider an example:

Simple

(c) Marco Casaroli 2014

Virtual LAN (VLAN)


Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB)


Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)


Tunnel IP over IP


Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN)


V$#^!X!LANWaste of the precious bit rate achieved by physical layer!


Too much control, too few useful information!


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü The Internet looks like a TetrisTM game in which the player is almost "Dead" !!!

IP

TCPUDP

SIP

Overlays

Internet TCP/IP: GAME OVER!?

ATMSDH


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü Other limitations are:

ú The dual semantics of IP addresses (identifier and locator). ú The lack of unique addresses and transparency. ú The inefficient support for host mobility. ú The inexistent support for service mobility. ú The incomplete naming approach, which do not name applications

and other important entities in architecture. ú The weak support for security, privacy, and trust. ú The weak support for multicast. ú The weak support for quality of service. ú The problematic support for inter autonomous system routing. ú The inexistent support for multihoming. ú The scalability issues of client/server model.


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü These limitations motivated many people to question the

adequacy of the current Internet architecture to meet the exponential growths expected to the Internet in the next decades! !

ü Since this question was first made, a lot of initiatives to reshape the Internet appeared around the world - the so called Future Internet design.


1. Panorama on the Current Internet Statusü The main motto question is:

ú Considering the current state-of-art on computing and communications, is it possible to design right now a new Internet that best meets our information society needs?

2013

After redesign!!!

1970

The Beetle

The Internet

No deep redesign until now!!!

Huge scale!

2. The Race for Future Internet Architectures


‣ Map of world wide initiatives

Japão: NICT, Univ. Tokio. -Akari, Net. Virtual. Lab. -JGN, JGN2, JGN2+ -Spark

Map: Wikipédia.

© Antônio M. Alberti

Europa: FP6/FP7/Horizon2020, PPP, KIC, Eureka, EuroNF - EIFFEL, GÉANT2, OneLab & PanLab, NESSI, NEM, RNRT

- 4WARD, SENSEI, S-CUBE, 2020 3D, eMobility, G-Lab, AutoI - CASCADAS, SAIL, IRATI, ABNO, NFV - FIA: FCN, FIRE, SOFI, RWI; FI-PPP: FI-WARE, FINEST - ETPs: NEM, NESSI, Net!Works, EPoS, ENIAC.EUA: NeTS e Outros

- NewArch, 100x100 - FIND, NOSS, ProWin - NBD, GENI, PlanetLab - Internet2 - RINA, XIA, MobilityFirst - CCNx, NDN

Canadá: - Canarie

Ásia: - AsiaFI - CJK

Korea: - FIF, MOFI, - IDCOM, DIANA

Brasil: - RNP, FIBRE - Horizon - RouteFlow - NovaGenesis

China: - CNGI


2. The Race for Future Internet Architecturesü U.S.A.

ü First initiatives: ü RINA (Late 1990-), NewArch (2000-2003): FARA & NIRA,

100x100 Clean Slate Project (2003-2006), Ethane (2006-?), SDN & OpenFlow (2008-), 4D, I3, NSF FIND (2006-), GENI (2005-), POMI, NetFPGA. !

ü More recent initiatives: ü NSF NeTS-FIA: XIA, MobilityFirst, NDN, Nebula, ChoiceNet.


2. The Race for Future Internet Architecturesü Europe

ü First initiatives: ü FP6-IST:

ü Internet of the Future: Ambient Networks (2004-2007), DAIDALOS II (2003-2008) !

ü Future and Emerging Technologies: ANA (2006-2009), HAGGLE (2006-2010), BIONETS (2006-2010), CASCADAS (2005-2007).

!ü More recent initiatives:

ü FP7: ü Hundreds of initiatives: 4WARD, SAIL, TRILOGY, AutoI,

PSIRP, SENSEI, AWISSINET, FIRE, FIBRE, THINK TRUST, E3, SOA4ALL, S-CUBE, NEXOFRA, ASPIRE.


2. The Race for Future Internet Architecturesü Asia

ü Initiatives: ü Japan: Akari, NWGN Forum, JGN2 ü Korea: MOFI, DIANA, IDCOM, FI Forum, KOREN ü China: TUNOS, FINE, SAVA


2. The Race for Future Internet Architecturesü South America

ü Initiatives: ü Brazil: Horizon, NovaGenesis, RouteFlow, FIBRE


2. The Race for Future Internet Architecturesü Stanford University Project Objective:

ü “To reinvent the internet so Future Internet can: ü overcome fundamental architectural limitations of today's

Internet ü incorporate new technologies ü enable new class of applications and services ü continue to be a platform for innovations and thus be an engine

for economic growth and prosperity for the society”. !

ü The 100x100 Clean Slate Project Motto Question: ü “Given the benefit of hindsight and our current understanding of

network requirements and technologies, if we were not bound by existing design decisions and would be able to design the network from first principles (a clean slate design), how should we do it?”


2. The Race for Future Internet Architecturesü The BLED declaration proposed by European Commission:

The BLED Declaration:Towards a European approach to

the Future InternetCurrent Internet: Success & Challenges With over a billion users world-wide, the current Internet is a great success – a global integrated communications infrastructure and service platform underpinning the fabric of the European economyand European society in general. However, today's Internet was designed in the 1970s for purposes thatbear little resemblance to current and foreseen usage scenarios. Mismatches between original design goalsand current utilisation are now beginning to hamper the Internet’s potential. A large number of challengesin the realms of technology, business, society and governance have to be overcome if the future development ofthe Internet is to sustain the networked society of tomorrow.

Future Internet: Vital to continued economic Growth in EuropeIn the future, even more users, objects, services and critical information infrastructures will be networkedthrough the Future Internet which will underpin an ever larger share of our modern and global econo-mies.It is therefore time to strengthen and focus European activities on the Future Internet to maintainEurope’s competitiveness in the global marketplace.

Future Internet: Addressing the Challenges through EU Collaboration & CooperationEU member states have already committed, through the renewed Lisbon Agenda and the i2010 initiative,€9.1 billion of funding, as part of a public-private partnership, for ICT research over the duration of FP7.However, we must ensure that, within this, continuous and long term support is given to the design of theFuture Internet as a key element of the future networked society. It is of strategic importance for Europeto fully engage in the conception, development and innovation of a Future Internet ensuring the longterm growth of the ICT sector, full support to an ICT based economy, and the elimination of the digitaldivide for all citizens.The research projects assembled here in Bled represent the first phase of this public-private partnership,a joint investment of over €400 million, that recognises the challenges above and emphasises a concer-ted and comprehensive process of redesign, based upon novel network, service, trust, security and contenttechnologies together with strong initiatives towards new innovations in societal, governance and servicedomains, in order to ensure that the Future Internet fulfils its potential.More specifically, building upon the obligations of our individual project contracts and the goals of theStrategic Agendas of the European Technology Platforms, we confirm our ambitions include:Fostering Favourable Conditions through Coordinated Action•• Coordinate our efforts to foster cross-disciplinary innovation and creativity.•• Work together through a European Future Internet Assembly of research projects strengthening

cross-discipline activity and optimising the impact of our actions.•• Cultivate and foster the skills and knowledge required to develop the Future Internet.•• Create the conditions for the deployment of services and service oriented systems.•• Communicate through open standards for Future Internet technologies and architectures.•• Open the European Future Internet Assembly to new projects and actors over time to widen the

coordination and consistency of the action.Jointly Designing, Developing and Experimenting•• Services and networking architecture for the Future Internet.•• Location independent, interoperable, coherent, consistent, scalable, pervasive, reliable, secure and

efficient access to a coordinated set of services.•• Tools supporting collaborative business models and social network applications.•• Technologies ensuring the robustness and security of the networks, managing identities, protecting

privacy and creating trust in the on-line world.•• Approaches and tools to leverage the full potential of the Internet of Things.•• Capabilities for supporting the creation, sharing, locating and delivery of new-media content.Increasing Awareness at Policy Level•• Raise awareness of the economic, policy and regulatory issues as identified by the newly proposed

European Future Internet Assembly, the UN Internet Governance Forum, the OECD and the European regulatory frameworks.

•• Contribute to the definition of European positions within global forums and arenas.

Call for European action towards the Future InternetTo help us meet these major challenges, we call on the:•• European Member States to strengthen and coordinate their national R&D efforts and initiatives

toward the Future Internet.•• European Commission to stress the vision and amplify the related R&D in order to drive Europe ahead

of tomorrow’s Internet transformations in the way we work, live, and interact.•• European Member States and the European Commission to support the creation and activities of the

European Future Internet Assembly proposed in this declaration.

This declaration is endorsed by the following European Technology Platforms andEuropean Research Projects*: eMobility, NEM, NESSI, ISI and EPOSS2020 3D Media 4NEM 4WARD ADAMANTIUM AGAVE ASPIRE AUTOI AVANTSSAR AWISSENET CASAGRAS CHIANTI

CHORUS COIN CONTENTCuteLoop DICONETE3 eCRYPT II EFIPSANS EIFFEL eMOBILITY EURO-NF

FAST FORWARDINTERSECTION IRMOS iSURF m CIUDAD MASTER MobileWeb2.0 MOBITHIN MOMENT NAPA-WINE

N-CRAVENESSI 2010 OPEN P2P NEXT PanLab / PII PERSISTPetaMedia PICOS PRIMELIFEPRISM RESERVOIR

SAPIR S-CUBE SEA SENDORASENSEI SERVFACE Service WEB 3.0SHAPE sISI SMOOTH-IT SOA4ALL

SOCRATES SWIFT TA2TAS3 TECOM THINK-TRUST VICTORY WOMBAT

A significant change is required and the European Internet scientific and economicactors, researchers, industrialists, SMEs, users, service and content providers, now assert the urgent necessity to redesign the Internet, taking a broad multidisciplinaryapproach, to meet Europe’s societal and commercial ambitions.

*Accession to this declaration is open to existing and future EU Projects that wish to actively contribute

153-08 The Future Internet Manifesto:Mise en page 1 17/03/08 10:34 Page 1

EU member states have already committed, through the renewed Lisbon Agenda and the i2010 initiative, €9.1 billion of funding, as part of a public-private partnership, for ICT research over the duration of FP7.

3. Examples of Clean Slate Architectures


‣ RINA: Recursive Internet Architecture

‣ XIA: eXpressiveness Internet architecture

‣ NovaGenesis


3. Examples of Clean Slate Architecturesü RINA:

ü Designed considering that networking is IPC (Interprocess Communication), and only IPC. !

ü There are four RINA implementations: ü Alba ü TRIA network systems LLC ü Boston university ü Investigating RINA as an Alternative to TCP/IP (IRATI) funded

by FP7 in Europe.


3. Examples of Clean Slate Architecturesü RINA:

ü The IRATI`s key RINA abstractions are: ü Distributed IPC facility (DIF) ü Distributed Application Facility (DAF) ü Resource Information Base (RIB) ü Inter-DIF Directory (IDD) ü Error and Flow Control Protocol (EFCP) ü Common Distributed Application Protocol (CDAP) ü Common Application Connection Establishment Phase

(CACEP).

Layers

Network

Transport

Data Link

Physical

Applications

Network

Transport

Data Link

Physical

Applications

Network

DL DL

PHY PHY

TCP, UDP, …

IP

Web, email, ftp, …

RINA

Network

Transport

Data Link

Physical

Applications

Network

Transport

Data Link

Physical

Applications

Network

DL DL

PHY PHY

TCP, UDP, …

IP


DIF – “Networking is IPC”

Network

Transport

Data Link

Physical

Applications

Network

Transport

Data Link

Physical

Applications

Network

DL DL

PHY PHY

TCP, UDP, …

IP


IPC

IPC IPC

ü All DIFs have the same interface and components, regardless of their architectural level. DIFs are populated by IPC processes, which have a common internal structure.

An IPC Process

IPC API

Data Transfer Data Transfer Control Layer Management

SDU Delimiting

Data Transfer

Relaying and Multiplexing

SDU Protection

Transmission Control

Retransmission Control

Flow Control

RIB Daemon

RIB CDAP Parser/Generator

CACEP !!Enrollment

Flow Allocation

Resource Allocation

Forwarding Table Generator

Authentication

State VectorState VectorState Vector

Data Transfer Data Transfer





Flow ControlFlow Control

Increasing timescale (functions performed less often) and complexity


3. Examples of Clean Slate Architecturesü XIA:

ü A key abstraction is the principal, which can be defined as some type of entity that deserves attention, e.g. hosts, services, content.

!ü The key XIA concepts are:

ü Unique identification of every principal ü Expressing intent ü Flexible addressing using unique IDs ü Iterative refinement ü Intrinsic security !

ü Self-certifying identifiers (XIDs) are calculated by hashing the public cryptographic keys of domains, hosts, and services or the entire binary pattern of contents.



ü To express intent means to give clues to the network - XIDs - that point clearly the desired communication targets (e.g. a content, a service, a host, or a domain). !

ü Provides a flexible addressing approach where alternative forms of accessing some communicating target (called fallbacks) are provided. !

ü XIA routers can use more than one destination address to forward packets to a desired target. !

ü Therefore, if some ID is unknown at some router, alternative addressing can help to found the desired communicating target (a Content ID for example).



ü Proposes: ü A principal-independent expressive Internet protocol (XIP) that

covers flexible addressing, packet format, routing based on XIDs, and in-network caching of data chunks. !

ü A socket API - similar to the UDP socket. !

ü Three transport protocols: • X-datagram protocol (XDP), X-stream protocol (XSP), X-

chunk protocol (XChunkP).

4. NovaGenesis: Convergent Information Architecture


‣ 2008: Started Future Internet activities @ Inatel.

‣ 2009: Studying.

‣ 2010: First NovaGenesis design principles and choices.

‣ 2011: Finished draft architecture.

‣ 2012: Started proof-of-concept implementation. Refinement of choices.

‣ 2013: Test scenario over Mobile Future Internet (MOFI) from ETRI, CNU, and KNU - South Korea.

Very Brief History


‣ What is it?

‣ A Clean Slate Convergent Information Architecture

‣ A Framework Easily Integrated with the Current Internet

‣ An Alternative to the Current Internet Architecture

NovaGenesis

subscribing of services require authentication, secrecy, integrity, and authorization. Trust networks can be created among services in a service cluster. The same challenge reaches RWI. NEDs require innovative security mechanisms, including trust net-works. Since localization, context, and objective information are sensible, generalized mobility, semantic, and context also requires SPT support.

Real-time support is necessary for multimedia applications; to enable timely feed-back control on autonomic loops, to enable virtual networks to quickly react to changes on substrate resources, and to provide freshness of information on RWI. In addition, virtual entities, e.g., virtual base stations, can also require real-time support to promptly react to environmental changes. Reconfigurable hardware is important for virtualization and experiment-driven research. Nonetheless, virtualization is required to provide evolvability and sustainability of reconfigurable hardware.

Service-based applications accommodate compose-ability, diversity, extendability, and openness of applications, but requires autonomicity, security, privacy, context,

Fig. 1. Full mesh of synergies and dependencies among future Internet ingredients.© Antônio M. Alberti 2014

The NovaGenesis Team

(c) A

nton

io A

lber

ti 20

13, I

nate

l.

NovaGenesis in the Media

(c) A

nton

io A

lber

ti 20

13, I

nate

l.


Papers

(c) A

nton

io A

lber

ti 20

13, I

nate

l.


‣ Adopted decision choices:

- Entities and content naming using natural language and self-certifiable names (hash codes).

- As functionalities are seen as services, including network protocols implementations.

- Complex protocols like TCP are fragmented on a population of cooperating services - combined at runtime.

- Name bindings are stored on distributed hash tables, representing all kind of relationships among named-things.

- Name bindings are published and subscribed, enabling distributed search, discovery, negotiation, and contracting of services and content.

Overview

‣ Adopted decision choices (cont.):

- Substrate resources are exposed to software by proxies, which represent them regarding resource life-cycling and orchestration.

- All the communication is done by name-based message scheduling and exchanging, with dynamic headers.

- All the contracts among services can capture intrinsically the required quality, security, privacy, reputation, etc.

- The services will employ a decision cycle to meet objectives traced by human and machine operators.

- They will compete each other to better satisfy contracts (evolutionary pressures) and optimize the usage of substrate resources (evolution environment).

Overview

NovaGenesis Overview


Testing Scenario: Joint Services and Content Orchestration

‣ Clients e servers discover each other, publish SLAs and exchange named-content based on user policies.

‣ Provides check for content provenance, integrity, and coherence of content.

‣ MOFI provided transparent connectivity change.


‣ Content publishing round trip time

!!!!!‣ Content subscription round trip time

Testing Scenario: Joint Services and Content Orchestration


‣ NovaGenesis as an architecture to Adaptive and Cognitive Radio over Fiber (ACRoF) and Internet of Things (IoT)

From “H”RoF RoF

Splitter

Access Point

Spectrum Analyzer

Antenna Control Link

From “H”

To “E” To “E”

Optical Switch

Throughtput (Mbps)CINR (dB)

RF

Sa Freque © Antônio M. Alberti 2014

NovaGenesis Services for Proxy/Gateway/Control of: !-Spectrum Sensing -Optically

Controlled Antenna -Access Point -Wi-Fi VLAN !!!

‣ NG protocols are implemented as services, thus they have the same structure and life-cycle than any other service.

‣ NG creates a dynamic stack, where protocol implementations can be replaced any time and used on more than one layer, simultaneously.

‣ It brakes RINA IPC process structure or XIA protocol implementations in a set of dynamically composed services.

‣ NG enables any service to be particularized to any kind of entity.

‣ There is no limit on the number of principals or on what networking services can be customized to a principal type.

‣ NG also employs self-certifying names, but it enables any service to use natural language names, as well.

NG advantages when compared to RINA or XIA

‣ NG core services are available to applications via dynamic contracting, releasing them of duplicating the same services at upper layers.

‣ NG considers joint content and service life-cycling as a fundamental requirement.

‣ NG includes search, discovery, and reputation of services in the core.

‣ NG supports any naming structure, in any language.

‣ NG provides a distributed, scalable, generic name resolution service.

‣ NG avoids the RINA inter-DIF complications, and generalizes and expands XIA expressiveness.

NG advantages when compared to RINA or XIA


Thank You!

Antônio Marcos Alberti !

antonioalberti.blogspot.com facebook.com/antoniomarcos.alberti

researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Alberti linkedin.com/profile/view?id=69752898

http://inatel.academia.edu/AntonioMarcosAlberti mendeley.com/profiles/antonio-marcos-alberti/

twitter.com/antoniomalberti

Date post:	14-Jun-2015
Category:	Internet
Upload:	antonio-alberti
View:	389 times
Download:	1 times